Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2010
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:03:02PM -0500, Jesse Vincent wrote: > > > > On Mon 29.Nov'10 at 21:47:57 +0100, Abigail wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:54:10PM -0500, Jesse Vincent wrote: > > > > blunt. My votes go for, in that order: > > > > ->> > > To me, this doesn't have any mnemonic value. It's a special arrow. ;-) But no, it doesn't have any mnemonic value to me. But then, ->? doesn't have any mnemonic value to me (if it did, it would remind me of something different) either. The only proposal that has a little mnemonic value to me is &&->, and that's only due to the association of && with short circuiting. To me, ->> looks like an arrow. ->? doesn't. > > ==> > > -=> > > I can't imagine how much pain we'd experience explaining to newbies that > => is a comma, except when it's longer, in which case it's actually a > conditional dereference. In the same way we explain that > is a comparison, except when it's longer, and then it's a shift? Or = being assignment, except when it's longer and it's a comparison operator? Or that - is unary minus, except when it's subtraction, and when it's longer it's either pre- or post decrement? Or that the reverse meaning of <= isn't => ? I'm not really too worried about operators being substrings of other operators; we already have them. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next